[Preacherman]

From the Telegraph, London (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$JV0LCAGWL2IJVQFIQMGSFF4AVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2003/08/03/nguan03.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/08/03/ixnewstop.html):

Blair tells Bush: We don't want Guantanamo Britons

By David Bamber and Rajeev Syal
(Filed: 03/08/2003)

The Government has told America that it does not want the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to be returned for trial in Britain.

Whitehall officials say that the message that Britain does not want its nine detainees returned was conveyed privately to President George W. Bush during the recent visit to Washington by Tony Blair.

The decision comes after advice from government lawyers that it would be very hard to mount a successful prosecution in Britain because of the difficulty in obtaining evidence that is admissible in court. There are also fears that any public trial in Britain would force the disclosure of intelligence operations against al-Qa'eda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The Government is also concerned that the collapse of a prosecution in Britain would anger the public and be politically damaging.

A Whitehall aide said: "The Prime Minister made clear to the president that it was unlikely the men would face trial in Britain and that it could be embarrassing if they were released on their return after the US had branded them as major players in a terrorist network."

Two Britons, Feroz Abbasi, 23, and Moazzam Begg, 35, are among six suspects due to appear in front of American military tribunals that will be conducted partly in secret and without a jury.

Seven other Britons are awaiting a decision on their fate. All were captured in Afghanistan in early 2002, after allegedly fighting for the Taliban.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, publicly offered to repatriate the men in February 2002, if Britain put them on trial, after concerns about their fate were raised by Jack Straw, then the Foreign Secretary.

In an interview with The Telegraph then, Mr Rumsfeld said that he was willing to "let as many countries as possible have any of their nationals they would like".

He added: "They can handle the prosecution. I have no desire to fill up our jails and spend time and money holding people."

Mr Straw did not take him up on the offer, leading to accusations of Government backsliding from the families of the detainees.

One senior Government official added: "The legal advice is that they could not be tried in Britain. Even to begin proceedings we would need statements and eyewitness accounts which we know we haven't got."

Habib Rasul, whose younger brother Shafiq has been held in Guantanamo Bay for more than 19 months, last night accused the Government of being "cowardly" and of failing to have faith in British justice.

[Waitone]

Once again the US must stand alone.

[Duncan Idaho]

Once again the US must stand alone.Yep!

I guess that the world is mighty lucky that we can.

Pssst...Euro losers! YOU CAN GET UP OFF OF YOUR KNEES IF YOU REALLY TRY!!!

[agricola]

it is a sad day for justice when people cannot be returned to their home country because they might not get found guilty at trial. :(

[Iain]

I'd agree with you agricola, time my government got some balls.

[Art Eatman]

Well, now, St Johns, you don't think they oughta be found "Not guilty", on account of their deprived childhoods? :D

I always figured that when you got caught fighting for the losing side, the winners pretty much have the say-so about what happens after that. These guys ain't at Gitmo 'cause they wuz doin' righteous things...

:D, Art

[Duncan Idaho]

it is a sad day for justice when people cannot be returned to their home country because they might not get found guilty at trial.I would say that it is an even worse day for justice when a country's legal system is capable of doing double back-handsprings, through flaming hoops of hideous illogic, to persecute its subjects for protecting their own lives, while simultaneously remaining impotent to prosecute people who traveled all the way to Trashcanistan in order to learn how to slaughter their own countrymen en mass.

[Oleg Volk]

Perhaps the UK is still trying to make up for the excesses of the Boer War (1899-1902)...

[Iain]

Not necessarily, just would be nice for them to get a fair and open trial which is apparently too ''liberal''.

''Sure we do. All it takes is for a member of the Executive branch to declare you an "enemy combatant". Bingo! No right to a lawyer, no trial by a jury of your peers, no limits on length of detainment without charges. Just ask Jose Padilla.''

From Marko Kloos on the ''Patriot Act'' thread.

[rrader]

Not necessarily, just would be nice for them to get a fair and open trial which is apparently too ''liberal''

How can you call criminal trials "open" in the UK when in most cases it isn't even permitted to publish the names of the defendents.

As for the terrorists, any "open trial" would be problematic considering the inherient risk of disclosure of sources and methods of intelligence gathering, actual disclosure of sensitive information, potential communication from the defendent to other terrorists, etc.

As far as the US Constitution is concerned, these types of military tribunals were challenged during WWII and were found to be Constitutional for enemy combatants during a time of war.

[Iain]

I do take the point about not compromising future intelligence gathering at these trials.

Also, not publishing the names of the defendant is more likely to get a fair trial, and we do most of the time anyway. Just children that are guaranteed anonymity.

Is it necessary for the ''trials'' to be carried out with US military appointed judges, defence and prosecution? Could be done more fairly regardless of whether someone managed to defend it under the constitution fifty years ago. And ''enemy combatants'' is just a clever way of circumventing the niceties of the Geneva Convention, you know like humane treatment etc.

[rrader]

St. Johns:

Is it necessary for the ''trials'' to be carried out with US military appointed judges, defence and prosecution? Could be done more fairly regardless of whether someone managed to defend it under the constitution fifty years ago. And ''enemy combatants'' is just a clever way of circumventing the niceties of the Geneva Convention, you know like humane treatment etc.

In my opinion the requirement for any Defense attorney to be vetted by the US Government is crucial. We have an unending supply of very hard-left activist lawyers in the US who salivate at the prospect of turning the trial of these defendents into a big anti-US show and the prospect of doing real and actual harm to US national security.

The defendents at Gitmo are being treated well with better housing and diets than they had back in the Taliban training camps, and vastly better than they way these "foreign Arabs" treated the native Afghanis. I recall seeing video of executions of Afghani women at a Kabul football stadium where the "crimes" these women were being killed for comprised leaving thier homes without a male escort, too much of a colorfull head scarf peeking out from under their burkah, etc. Pretty sick stuff, Khmer-Rouge "year-zero" style sickness, i.e, Cambodians killed for wearing eyeglasses, knowing a few words of English, etc.

[HBK]

We should have executed them in Afganistan and saved the US taxpayers money.

[Art Eatman]

"Is it necessary for the ''trials'' to be carried out with US military appointed judges, defence and prosecution? Could be done more fairly regardless of whether someone managed to defend it under the constitution fifty years ago."

'Scuse me, St Johns, but the constitutional issue was not about fairness, and what does the 50-year period have to do with anything relevant to the issue?

Why do you assume that military judges and attorneys are not fair? Is there some character flaw inherent in all military people?

I've witnessed a couple of courts-martial, and been involved in several civilian trials at our state level and at our federal level. About the only real difference is that the military trials focus more on the facts, and extraneous BS is not so readily brought in by our circus clowns--er, trial lawyers.

I'll rephrase that: Fewer histrionics in the military trials.

Specificity of evidence is certainly no less rigorous in a court martial.

Art

[agricola]

rrader,

congratulations, i didnt think it was possible for one person to be factually mistaken in each and every post they make, but you have managed to pull it off.

do you have a link that states:

How can you call criminal trials "open" in the UK when in most cases it isn't even permitted to publish the names of the defendents.

since its clear to me at least that this is yet another fabricated factoid of yours.....

[agricola]

all,

oh, and not revealing intelligence information is not as much of a problem over here because we have whats called Public Interest Immunity Certificates, which are issued by a judge who decides whether or not the information is admissible, and if it is whether or not to accept it as fact without consulting the defence. No doubt this will annoy some of you, but its designed for just this kind of thing.

[rrader]

Agricola:

congratulations, i didnt think it was possible for one person to be factually mistaken in each and every post they make, but you have managed to pull it off.

Actually I think it's even more suprising how often you have been wrong regarding the nature of the system of justice in the UK (or lack thereof).

You have been consistantly wrong regarding the appaling lack of any practical means of self-defense for the people of the UK, wrong about particulars of the Martin case, wrong when you attempt to paint a picture of a falling rate of crime in the UK when in fact violent crime is skyrocketing, etc.

On the other hand I have been mostly correct in my posts regarding the UK, as most here including some from the UK seem to agree, particularly with regard to the character of your views regarding personal responsibility and freedom to defend oneself against violent crime.

If I have mistakenly projected characteristics of the Canadian system onto the UK's then: I stand corrected. Words you seem to be too childish to ever utter.

[Boats]

At least they are getting some sort of trial. A hundred or so years ago, they'd have been shot or hanged more or less on the spot.

I think we have made a mistake not "repatriating" these guys back to Afghanistan, where they could have disappeared into a cargo container in the hot sun.

I do not know about the "classified intelligence angle." This country has a statute against citizens conducting their own foreign policy, and it has actually been used against would-be mercenaries, and freedom fighters. Once in a great while, one hears about plots to invade/attack Cuba being broken up by the feds for example. Getting caught at arms on the wrong side of official policy would be enough to convict without any more need for evidence.

Certainly the Crown has some prohibition on its erstwhile "citizens" taking up arms and fighting in foreign lands where the government has declared an interest and perhaps committed troops? If not, it needs to get one.

The greater fear in Britain is probably that these "adventure tourists" would be found guilty of something and then the Lord Chief Justice would declare that since they are first time offenders, that they should write letters of apology to Afghanistan and the US for causing them the inconvenience of having to capture them at arms and be done with it. Then of course, these clowns might be given a stipend with which to sue those same governments because they can't enjoy the Carribean anymore.:rolleyes:

[Preacherman]

Folks, please remember to keep arguments on The High Road - attack arguments, politely if possible, but never other members.

Rrader, with respect, you are wrong about one point of UK trials - defendants are indeed named, and only in cases of the highest national security and/or those needing additional protection (e.g. children) is it permissible to keep evidence and the identity of witnesses a secret. Agricola is right on this one.

However, I would respectfully disagree with Agricola's point that:
it is a sad day for justice when people cannot be returned to their home country because they might not get found guilty at trial.
As I understand the problem, it's not that they might not be found guilty (that is also possible under the US tribunal system): it's that security might be compromised in introducing evidence from identifiable sources into a legal system that will not respect that confidentiality, as it is not bound to ensure it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Iain]

Preacherman - I'd agree with all of that post.

However, the US went to war on a ticket of fighting terrorism, defending democracy etc. There is not one rule for US citizens and soldiers and another for Islamic Fundamentalists (much as none of us have much time for their militant actions) The US needs to be seen to treat everybody evenly and fairly, as it would be expect it's own citizens to be treated. Guantanamo Bay and military appointed secret trials don't give out the right image.

[Art Eatman]

St Johns, why is it not possible that there be different treatment, different procedures, for crimes committed within the country, and crimes committed during combat in another country?

I've no interest in the legal wrangles about POW and "other captured combatants" or whatever status the Gitmo boys have. But, they were indeed captured in a wartime situation, having shot at our troops. So long as they aren't brutalized during the incarceration, I just don't understand the whooping and hollering.

Re-patriation for trial? Hey, get caught in Mexico with an empty shell casing, and see what sort of re-patriation you get. Get caught with a live round and it goes down hill just real quick. God save your happy tail if you get caught with a firearm.

Seems to me we got too many folks picking too much fly-poop out of too little pepper.

Art

[agricola]

rrader,

go on, find these errors so that we can all see where i have gone wrong.

edit: some pointers -

i) you might like to find where and when i was factually wrong about access to self defence weapons in the UK;

ii) or when i attempt to paint an image of falling crime in the UK - most of my points have been to challenge the sometimes prevailing view here that crime is skyrocketing, which is it itself wrong.

[agricola]

preacherman,

i would have no problem with detention of these people as POW for the duration of the "War on Terrorism" - which is probably with us for a good long while.

what i do have a problem with is the nature of their detention at the moment, which seems to have no legal basis at all - especially for the nine British citizens held there. honestly, if we cannot put those men before a jury and have a reasonable chance of them being found guilty then they should not be in detention.

[Keith]

The US needs to be seen to treat everybody evenly and fairly, as it would be expect it's own citizens to be treated. Guantanamo Bay and military appointed secret trials don't give out the right image

St. John's,

Can you name any nation that has ever tried prisoners taken in war in civil courts? Please just name one... I'm waiting...

Al Qaeda (and a number of other groups) have publicly declared war on the United States AND attacked us AND inflicted casualties on civilians. You are in fact arguing that since these since people don't wear uniforms (since they violate the rules of war...?) they should get special treatment - a civil trial where the soldiers who captured them would have to prove they were arrested in legal fashion; given Miranda warnings, immediate access to an attorney, etc, etc, etc.
It's impossible of course. The very fact that they were taken on the field of battle by military forces would be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act and immediate grounds to dismiss the case in any civil court in the United States.

And similar rules would apply in any western nation.

We are at war! These are military prisoners. They will be kept in cages until the end of the war. If linked to attacks against civilian targets, they will be tried as war criminals in a military tribunal - EXACTLY as it has been done in every conflict in this nations history and exactly as it has been done in every western nations history.

Wake up!

Keith

[Iain]

edited because I can't be bothered.

[Duncan Idaho]

There is not one rule for US citizens and soldiers and another for Islamic Fundamentalists Read the Geneva Convention(s) sometime. Pay special attention to those parts that define what is, and what is not, a soldier in uniform.

That part of the Geneva treaty was formed in order to prevent folks - like the death-cult bastards that we are currently up against - from hiding behind the skirts of their women (as they always do), while still expecting to be engaged as, and treated as, the soldiers that they never were.

I think we have made a mistake not "repatriating" these guys back to Afghanistan, where they could have disappeared into a cargo container in the hot sun.That is the most sensible thing that anyone has said so far.

[Keith]

edited because I can't be bothered.

No, edited because you can't name a war where prisoners were tried in civil courts.

How come you are not arguing that Iraqi prisoners should be shipped to the US to stand trial? What makes Al Qaeda members superior and/or different than Iraqi soldiers?

If it is the lack of uniforms then maybe our own troops should wear whatever they want and argue for civil trials when captured. Their lawyers could demand forensic evidence, eyewitnesses, Miranda warnings, etc, at the trial. And since none of that is possible on a battlefield, they'd have to be released to continue the fight. Of course, nobody would demand such nonsense of any other nation - people like you only expect the US to contradict the rules of war in a way that makes it impossible to win!

Your whole argument is based on nonsense that has no historical or rational basis!

Keith

[agricola]

keith,

actually several U-boat men were seized at the tail end of WW2 and held as "unlawful combatants" and not POW, following which they were beaten, maltreated (to such an extent that one man killed himself). following a complaint from a US Naval officer (to the eternal credit of that service) the men were moved, but the maltreatment continued until the men were finally classified as POW.

"Unlawful combatants" were tried in US courts as is a matter of record - indeed the justification for the current system.

[Iain]

I don't want to get into a slanging match with someone I don't know over the internet, your tone is not appreciated.

Nuremburg. ''International Military Tribunal''. Were Canadians, Britons and others not involved in Afghanistan?

I'm not arguing for civil courts - openness and fairness is what I am arguing for.

How come you are not arguing that Iraqi prisoners should be shipped to the US to stand trial?

Since when did POW's that have not committed war crimes stand trial? You said ''we are at war'', yet this men are not covered by the Geneva Convention. Can't have it both ways. Which war anyway? War on Terror - that ain't ever ending it is political speak for ''open-ended''. Iraq? That has nothing to do with these guys.

Your constitution - rights not to be detained without charge. They are not American citizens, but why is there one rule for you and one for them?

Surprised by the implicit trust in what your govt tells you on this one. None of you trust the govt with the 2nd Amendment so why on this?

Oh yeah, it doesn't affect you personally - I forgot.

[Keith]

"Unlawful combatants" were tried in US courts as is a matter of record - indeed the justification for the current system.

Nonsense. Combatants captured out of uniform are tried in military tribunals; generally as spies or saboteurs.

Even US citizens captured out of uniform and fighting for the other side have been tried by the military. The best known case is of an immigrant who returned to Germany in WWII and was later captured with some NAZI saboteurs on the US east coast. He was tried by military tribunal. The case was challenged, but the tribunal was upheld by the US Supreme Court.


Here's a link to the Supreme Court case on the subect: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/317/1.html

[MicroBalrog]

Definition of lawful combatant from Britannica:

from war, law of

Lawful combatants
Those who may lawfully take part in hostilities are those who would be entitled to prisoner-of-war status if captured. Any other person taking part in a conflict may be treated as an unprivileged belligerent, or a franc-tireur, and he may be punished if captured. Article 4 of the third Geneva Convention of 1949 and article 43 of the first Protocol of 1977 provide that a lawful combatant is generally a member of the armed forces of a state. The term also includes members of the merchant marine and inhabitants of unoccupied territory who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces until the territory has been occupied.

A spy is in a unique position, since he is often a member of the armed forces of a state; but if he acts in disguise in the zone of operations of an enemy in order to obtain information to pass on to his own forces, he may be punished provided he has a trial.

A mercenary is not protected at all; he has the right to be neither a combatant nor a prisoner of war. A mercenary is defined in the first Protocol of 1977 (which neither the United Kingdom nor the United States has ratified) as a person who is specially recruited to take part in a conflict, who is motivated essentially by private gain, and who is paid substantially more than the ordinary armed forces of the state to which he has been recruited. He must not be a national of the recruiting state or a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict.

Guerrilla fighters are not solely a modern phenomenon, although during and after World War II they became a common feature of armed conflicts, especially those occurring in the developing world. The third Geneva Convention of 1949 required what is called an organized resistance movement to possess four characteristics before its members could be treated as prisoners of war upon capture. These were: (1) being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, (2) having a fixed and distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, (3) carrying arms openly, and (4) conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. In time, it became apparent that two of these four conditions were difficult for guerrilla fighters to meet. Were guerrillas to wear a fixed and distinctive sign recognizable at a distance or carry arms openly, they could hardly operate with any safety in occupied territory. The first Protocol of 1977 made a number of important changes that bind those states that are parties to it. For example, one of the major problems with recognizing guerrilla fighters as lawful combatants is that they may not, in fact, distinguish themselves from the civilian population--in which case, all civilians are placed at risk. Therefore, article 43 of the Protocol requires all combatants to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. However, even if a combatant does not do this, he will still be entitled to treatment as a lawful combatant if he carries his arms openly during each military engagement and during such time as he is visible to the adversary while engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

A member of the armed forces of a party to a conflict will lose his status as a prisoner of war upon capture if he commits an act of hostility while wearing civilian clothes. In the case of Osman Bin Mohammed v. Public Prosecutor (1968), the Privy Council in London held that members of the Indonesian armed forces who had landed in Singapore during an armed conflict between Indonesia and Malaysia were not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war after having placed a bomb in a civilian building that caused the deaths of civilians. This loss of prisoner status will also apply, among the states that are parties to the first Protocol of 1977, if their combatants do not at least carry their arms openly, as described above.


Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

[Keith]

Nuremburg. ''International Military Tribunal''. Were Canadians, Britons and others not involved in Afghanistan?

It doesn't matter. There were thousands of military tribunals conducted independently by various nations during WWII. The fact that Nuremberg was conducted jointly doesn't have any bearing on the other tribunals that were not conducted jointly.

Since when did POW's that have not committed war crimes stand trial?

Never. And only Al Qeada members associated with war crimes will stand before a tribunal. The rest (the majority) will just remain locked up until the war is over, just as has always been done, in every war, by every civilized nation.

Your constitution - rights not to be detained without charge. They are not American citizens, but why is there one rule for you and one for them?

You are confused (again) between warfare and civil offenses. US citizens fighting for the opposing force are not generally tried in civil courts, but in military tribunals (if they are guilty of war crimes). If not guilty of an actual war crime they MAY be tried before a civil court on treason charges, an offense spelled out in the US Constitution.


You said ''we are at war'', yet this men are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

Nonsense again. Al Qeada has declared war and struck the first blow. All prisoners detained are visited by the red cross on a regular basis and all aspects of their treatment are in accordance with the Geneva Convention. They have "three hots and a cot", receive and send mail, etc, and that is about all they are entitled to. Those associated with atrocities will be tried before a tribunal. Those not associated with crimes will remain in detention until the war is over.

Follow this link and read the case to understand the constitutional basis all this: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/317/1.html

Keith

[Iain]

Keith - which war?

[Keith]

The current war as well as all wars past and present.

If you missed the beginning of the war, it began when Ossama Bin Laden declared Jihad (war) against the US. The war was politely ignored until an attack on 9/11/01 that resulted in a lot of civilian deaths here in the US. I'm surprised you hadn't heard about it since it was in all the papers...

Keith

[MicroBalrog]

Did anybody even read my previous post?

[Iain]

See thread entitled ''It's official''

[Keith]

Then prisoners will remain in detention until they die of old age. It's been done before - look back to some of the wars in Europe that went on for generations.

Human beings choose their own fate. These men chose poorly.

Keith

[Keith]

Micro,

I did read your post but it doesn't really address the crux of the issue. It states that guerilla fighters lose their POW status if associated with war crimes, but fails to detail what status they then hold...
It also fails to address how those not associated with a particular state (Al Qaeda) are designated.

The US argues that these persons are "battlefield detainees" and I believe this to be correct. It would make little sense to give such persons status as civil criminals and accord them special rights and privileges denied other prisoners of war.

Keith

[Duncan Idaho]

Did anybody even read my previous post?Yeah, and precisely what does it have to do with the treaties, conventions, and accords regarding international warfare?

During my military service, we studied the various Geneva Conventions.

[MicroBalrog]

What does it do? Explain the definition of "combatant" under current international law.

[Duncan Idaho]

What does it do? Explain the definition of "combatant" under current international law.Not really. It gives Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.'s version.

The international treaties define the law. They don't require Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.'s interpretation in order to be enforced.

[agricola]

Keith,

That would be the ideal, except that the US has repeatedly refused to grant POW status to anyone it currently detains. The fact that they have not done this raises some questions.

Also, "unlawful combatant" is a misnomer. As microbalrog pointed out, the international legislation only defines what category of persons enjoy legal protection when captured by an opposing force - and is silent on those who do not meet this criteria. Since most here would argue that nothing is illegal unless someone makes a law against it, I'd argue this means their detention as unlawful combatants is wrong (though not if they made them POW).

Of course, those of them who are suspected of offences against whoever should be tried in a civil court as per normal.

[Duncan Idaho]

A lot of this was hashed over here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12477&perpage=25&highlight=america%20admits&pagenumber=3

You may want to note: Johnson v. Eisentrager
339 U.S. 763 (1950)

The United States Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or immunity from military trial and punishment on alien enemies engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States. The "aliens" concerned were German Nationals who were confined in the custody of the United States Army in Germany following their conviction y a military commission of having engaged in military activity against the United States in China after the surrender of Germany. The Court stated that the military authorities have a jurisdiction, during or following "hostilities" to punish those guilty of offenses against the laws of war, and the German Nationals did not have the right to a writ of habeas corpus.


And you Brits may remember this as one of the many reasons that we won't give the rats to you to take care of: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9741&highlight=america+admits

[Boats]

Also, "unlawful combatant" is a misnomer. As microbalrog pointed out, the international legislation only defines what category of persons enjoy legal protection when captured by an opposing force - and is silent on those who do not meet this criteria. Since most here would argue that nothing is illegal unless someone makes a law against it, I'd argue this means their detention as unlawful combatants is wrong (though not if they made them POW).

There are basically two kinds of law generally: positive and negative. The Geneva Convention is an attempt at positive law applied to an area where once there was only seldom observed custom. The GC positively identifies those that it seeks to protect, and by exclusion, defines those it does not.

The GC proscribes POW status for the AQ. They do not meet the criteria for prisoners of war under any of the Articles. They are "extragovernmental" for lack of a better term. They were not part of any of the de facto governmental armed forces of Afghanistan (a duly recognized "party" under the GC) at the commencement of open hostilities between that country and the allies who went in to overthrow the Taliban. Out of some nearly 20 million Afghanis of all ethnic groups, some 600+ people found on the ground there were detained as "unlawful combatants." One might think that given the odds, the major ethnic group detained would be Afghani. However, it is not. The major number of the detainees held at Guantanamo come from 43 different countries, with those of the Saudi Arabian peninsula dramatically overrepresented.

Parse the UC descripton. Unlawful. Illegal. Outside of the law. Against the law. Outlaws. Combatant. Insert you favorite synonym, but the definition of combatant would at a minimum mean someone who was caught doing behavior one might casually discern was hostile in its intent towards the capturing party. These people, rudely interrupted by the US Armed Forces during their Lonely Planet fully automatic getaways in Fundamentaliststan, fall outside of the positive protections of the GC. They were not nation state actors. They were not Afghani regulars. They were not Afghani irregulars. They defy description under the GC. Also, as non-citizens of the US, it is well established that they enjoy no access to the courts here when not actually detained in the the civil jurisdiction of the United States.

These detainees have no cognizable rights under domestic or international law. They should be greatful that they were not subjected to summary execution by warlords in Afghanistan, who'd have easily guaranteed that nobody in the West would be clamoring about their "rights" today.

It is so difficult to feel any empathy for these yahoos. Never fear, the same old crowd of lefty pro-criminal legal activists and the legion of dictator fawning, cyclopean "human rights" activists will keep their eye on us exclusively, trying to make us regret not shooting them outright as one would rabid dogs.

[Keith]

That would be the ideal, except that the US has repeatedly refused to grant POW status to anyone it currently detains.

Because the category of prisoners accorded POW status are specifially identified in the Geneva Convention! Al Qaeda fighters do fit the criteria because they fight for no particular state and wear no uniform.
That's why those uniformed Taliban fighters HAVE BEEN granted POW status and repatriated long ago, while those associated with Al Qaeda are still detained. The war with Afghanistan is over - the war with Al Qaeda is not.

Battlefield detainees are those caught without uniforms and not associated with a sovereign state; though they are still largely accorded the same treatment as POW's. Read the Geneva Convention and note what it says in articles 4 and 5. Article 4 identifies categories to be identified as POW's. Article 5 declares that all captured belligerents who do not fit the POW criteria MUST be subjected to a military tribunal!

You are arguing that the US should violate the Geneva Convention.

Read it yourself: http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/91.htm

[HBK]

Well said, Keith. But I still think they should've all just been shot in Afganistan.


edited for spelling:(

[agricola]

boats,

unlawful means "against the law" - there is no law here, only a definition of someone that has legal protection under the Geneva Convention. I am not stating that these people have those rights automatically (though see below).

keith,

article 5 specifically states that the combatants SHOULD be treated as POW until a competent tribunal assesses their status:

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Maybe you should read it?

[Duncan Idaho]

such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.What makes you think that a "competent tribunal" hasn't already made that assessment?

We stopped having to report back to you guys in 1776 don't ya know? :p

[rrader]

And you Brits may remember this as one of the many reasons that we won't give the rats to you to take care of: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...=america+admits

Just more evidence of what a perverse, low, and retrograde system of asylum and criminal justice the British have at every level.

Sad when their own Government officially recognizes this incompetence and by default asks the US to try the terrorists who are UK citizens instead.

[Keith]

article 5 specifically states that the combatants SHOULD be treated as POW until a competent tribunal assesses their status:

Yup, and all the prisoners at Gitmo are being given the treatment accorded a POW. Three meals a day, exercise, showers, red cross visits, etc.

Were you laboring under the mistaken assumption that they were being mistreated in some way?

Keith

[agricola]

rrader,

if its perverse and low not to convict people except on the basis that they have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of an offence against the law, then this may be your first ever correct statement made on THR.

i'll always remember when i was when this historic moment occured:D

[rrader]

Agricola:

?if its perverse and low not to convict people except on the basis that they have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of an offence against the law, then this may be your first ever correct statement made on THR.

You've missed the point as always. Perhaps a little more work on your reading comprehension skill is in order.

The perverse aspect was the UK's incompetence in granting asylum to former Taliban fighters.

And as always, the low and retrograde aspect is the utter incompetence of the UK's justice system in handling criminal and terrorist cases of all types.

You must be referring to convictions "beyond a reasonable doubt of an offence (sic) against the law" like the convictions of "terrorists" such as the "Guilford 4"

The Government of the UK has looked out across the vast wasteland that is its criminal justice system, taken into account it's incompetence in proceedure and vastly incompetent law enforcement personnel, and decided to let the Americans handle it.

We'll, to paraphrase Inspector Callahan, "A country's got to know its limitations" :D :D

[agricola]

rrader,

ah, because the asylum seekers point was so clear from your post :rolleyes:

dont miscarriages of justice happen in the US then? i presume your comments vis a vis the Guildford Four mean thats what you are suggesting?

Still, i guess we should be thankful that we arent allowing you to come and take all our terrorists off us because one imagines next years St. Patricks Day parade in Gitmo would be a sellout if you did.

Your comments on incompetence are humourous coming from someone who was challenged to produce evidence of me being factually wrong, and has failed to do so... couldnt find any, could you?

ps: the asylum programme is not part of the Criminal Justice system - its part of the Immigration Service.

[Khornet]

We have an organization dedicated to the killing of unarmed, defenseless civilians, especially Americans. Said organization proceeds to do so. Americans attack their home base, and kill some and capture others.

Those captured are then imprisoned in humane circumstances, where they remain...gaining weight, with better health care than they had back home. Even their religious needs are catered to by their captors.

There's only one way you can find a problem with this. Only one way you can find it damning that the acts of the captors are not letter-perfect.

That's if you're not quite sure that the captives are as bad as all that, and not quite sure that America didn't have it coming to some degree. Then the glass will appear half-empty, and a few displays of temper or haste from the US will outweigh the great restraint she has shown.

There's plenty of this on both sides of the Atlantic.

[rrader]

Agricola:

ah, because the asylum seekers point was so clear from your post

You seem to be the only one having any problem understanding it.

Sad indictment of the UK justice system and its personnel when the Blair Government won't trust it to try its own citizens competently.

Your comments on incompetence are humourous coming from someone who was challenged to produce evidence of me being factually wrong, and has failed to do so... couldnt find any, could you?

This statement is just further proof you have a problem with your reading comprehension skills.

Still, i guess we should be thankful that we arent allowing you to come and take all our terrorists off us because one imagines next years St. Patricks Day parade in Gitmo would be a sellout if you did.

I'll be attending the parade in Boston. Paul Hill will most likely be attending also. Go Irish!

[morganm01]

Couldn't the T's just apologize like the rest of Britains criminals?:confused:

[agricola]

rrader,

you havent found any have you?

[seeker_two]

I'll agree to the proposal IF we can send them 10 of our illegal aliens for each "terrorist" that we keep... :D